8 thoughts on “Well-thought out feminist counterpoint.

  1. I like how this author addresses the advertising issue:

    Sure, they can stick their “SHE” gender diversity index plinth on there. But that isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference to how the vast majority of passers-by will interpret and react to the statue, which is simply to see a girl standing up to a rampaging bull. I maintain that anyone who sees that and doesn’t rejoice in their hearts, even a little bit, is dead inside.

  2. < ![CDATA[I like how this author addresses the advertising issue: Sure, they can stick their “SHE” gender diversity index plinth on there. But that isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference to how the vast majority of passers-by will interpret and react to the statue, which is simply to see a girl standing up to a rampaging bull. I maintain that anyone who sees that and doesn’t rejoice in their hearts, even a little bit, is dead inside.]]>

  3. I don’t see the merit in the counterpoint response. Most of it is a red herring that confuses statistics about the representation of women as public statues with the primary essay’s argument.

    When it appears to engage the primary argument (the bull symbology), it ignores the obvious context surrounding the statue’s origin. The primary essay explains that the bull was installed after the market crash in 1987, a time of economic and arguably national uncertainty. Di Modica placed the statue virtually on the doorstep of the New York Stock Exchange. I sincerely doubt that the counterpoint’s author is unaware of the bull as a metaphor for a strong, surging stock market. So what am I to make of her interpretation? I find it reaching and disingenuous at best. I would be slightly more impressed if the author tried to make her point by drawing a connection to male dominance in the financial world as a step to the broader point about American male dominance. But she doesn’t and I’m not.

    The counterpoint’s author also blithely wanders past the primary’s essay point regarding Fearless Girl deriving the entirety of its power from Di Modica’s work and whether a piece of corporate art intended as advertising even qualifies as “public art.” Calling the counterpoint essay a response or rebuttal to the primary essay strikes me as exceedingly generous.

  4. < ![CDATA[I don't see the merit in the counterpoint response. Most of it is a red herring that confuses statistics about the representation of women as public statues with the primary essay's argument. When it appears to engage the primary argument (the bull symbology), it ignores the obvious context surrounding the statue's origin. The primary essay explains that the bull was installed after the market crash in 1987, a time of economic and arguably national uncertainty. Di Modica placed the statue virtually on the doorstep of the New York Stock Exchange. I sincerely doubt that the counterpoint's author is unaware of the bull as a metaphor for a strong, surging stock market. So what am I to make of her interpretation? I find it reaching and disingenuous at best. I would be slightly more impressed if the author tried to make her point by drawing a connection to male dominance in the financial world as a step to the broader point about American male dominance. But she doesn't and I'm not. The counterpoint's author also blithely wanders past the primary's essay point regarding Fearless Girl deriving the entirety of its power from Di Modica's work and whether a piece of corporate art intended as advertising even qualifies as "public art." Calling the counterpoint essay a response or rebuttal to the primary essay strikes me as exceedingly generous.]]>

  5. Incorrect, Dave. I quoted above where she addresses the “advertising” canard.

    It’s not an ad. it’s a marketing ploy. For it to be an ad, ordinary people would have to understand what it’s selling.

  6. < ![CDATA[Incorrect, Dave. I quoted above where she addresses the "advertising" canard. It's not an ad. it's a marketing ploy. For it to be an ad, ordinary people would have to understand what it's selling.]]>

  7. The plaque “advertising” SHE has been gone for two weeks. Now it says:

    Fearless Girl was placed in New York City’s Financial District, in honor of International Women’s Day 2017, to celebrate the importance of having greater gender diversity in corporate boards and in company leadership positions. She also stands as an inspiration for the next generation of women leaders”—presented by the New York City Department of Transportation Art Program and State Street Global Advisors
    fortune.com – Here’s Why the Fearless Girl Statue’s Controversial ‘SHE’ Plaque Was Removed

  8. < ![CDATA[The plaque “advertising” SHE has been gone for two weeks. Now it says: Fearless Girl was placed in New York City’s Financial District, in honor of International Women’s Day 2017, to celebrate the importance of having greater gender diversity in corporate boards and in company leadership positions. She also stands as an inspiration for the next generation of women leaders”—presented by the New York City Department of Transportation Art Program and State Street Global Advisors
    fortune.com – Here’s Why the Fearless Girl Statue’s Controversial ‘SHE’ Plaque Was Removed]]>